iraq a just war?

[Type941]

No
Yes
With time will know
What they gain seems to be outweighed by what they lose, thus far anyway. ..


Being naive about it is ever worse.


---

and yes, trouble maker you are!

[Skybird]

Pragmatically, it all comes down to this: are they (the Iraqis) better off now or worst? - watching at what is going on there day by day, I doubt the answer can be "yes, they are better off." It's worse.

Theoretically, it all comes down to this: has any of the major pre-war assumptions and declarations of the war-wanting authorities in the West and in the US beeing found to be true? - Quite the opposite.

Historically, it all comes down to this: will the outcome of the war and the post-war history of Iraq and the kind of nation it will become reflect the results (amongst others) that the war had intended to cause? - The difference cannot be bigger.

What it all means? It means that it is too late now to ask the right questions. The messup is done.

[Type941]

You ask if it's a JUST war, which is a loaded question. Bush certainly thinks what he's doing is for a just cause... Some memorable qoutes from the Man himself.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Bush never said that. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

[Kapitan]

i give 77% support for the war in iraq but i can say i dont like the idea of us being there for the next tten years or so

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pragmatically, it all comes down to this: are they (the Iraqis) better off now or worst? - watching at what is going on there day by day, I doubt the answer can be "yes".

Depends on your viewpoint I guess. The Sunnis might not have it as good as they did under Saddam, but what about the Kurds? Are they still being gassed and shot in wholesale lots? Are Shiites still being given starved, tortured and executed in wholesale lots?

Theoretically, it all comes down to this: has any of the major pre-war assumptions and declarations of the war-wanting authorities in the West and in the US beeing found to be true? - Quite the opposite.

The main pre-war assumption was that Saddam was a threat to us. Given his history and his oil money i'd say that assumption was and is an accurate one.

Historically, it all comes down to this: will the outcome of the war and the post-war history of Iraq and the kind of nation it will become reflect the results (amongst others) that the war had intended to cause? - The difference cannot be bigger.

What it all means? It means that it is too late now to ask the right questions. The messup is done.

The jury is still out on that, but I must say it's disturbing to see how many of our so called allies are hoping it won't.

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by August

Bush never said that. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Type "and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam" (including the quotes) into Google. 18800 hits. He reportedly said that to the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. I of course don´t know if it is right, but it wouldn´t surprise me...

[August]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Type "and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam" (including the quotes) into Google. 10300 hits. He reportedly said that to the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. I of course don´t know if it is right, but it wouldn´t surprise me...

Ok i did and "according to Abbas" is how the statement is described. Maybe something was garbled in translation, maybe Abbas had an agenda of his own by claiming he said it, but either way all it boils down to is pure hearsay.

[Type941]

Originally Posted by August

Bush never said that. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Do you blindly belief that you can know for 100% what Bush did and did not say?

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/


Baaaa. (sheep/sheepdogs/wolfs)

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

Do you blindly belief that you can know for 100% what Bush did and did not say?

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/


Baaaa. (sheep/sheepdogs/wolfs)

Talk about sheep! FWIW using a propaganda page as a reference does not in any way support your point. Shame on you.

[Type941]

Originally Posted by August

Talk about sheep! FWIW using a propaganda page as a reference does not in any way support your point. Shame on you.

Woof. So is it bollocks or you just don't like it? Cool Aid for you, sir?

What's a FWIW? ..From what I ...?

[Hitman]

No it wasn't a just war, because it was a preventive war, i.e. not a response to a previous attack but instead a war initiated based on vague supositions and inexact informations.

BUT

it was a necessary war for US and EU, because we largely depend on the oil and on the stability of those countries, and we could not tolerate that a dictator SOB like Saddam had the key to inflict the war another oil crisis like the one in the 70s or sell his oil only to China, making that country grow fast and ruining europe when retiring all that iraqui oil from the world's market (Something Iran has done, BTW).

It would be unfair to pretend to measure and evaluate the benefits of the war just by looking at what the iraquians have gained after it. They have gained democracy, and currently have a worser way of life, but that war has helped all us in EU and the US to start stabilizing an area that will be a key in the near future whe the oil peak crisis starts.

We all know that a transition to other energies must be done, and we know the world is not and will not be ready for that in the inmediate future. So when a crisis starts I honestly prefer that it is the US who can control a scarce resource like oil instead of Saddam.

Another entirely different matter is that the "american way of life" means a stupid and innecesary waste of energy, and that the US could -and should- learn to live in the same confort but with less waste of resources.


My 2 cents

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by Type941

What's a FWIW? ..From what I ...?

"For what it´s worth".

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

Woof. So is it bollocks or you just don't like it? Cool Aid for you, sir?

What's a FWIW? ..From what I ...?

It's bollocks, either a mistranslation or a deliberate political smear.

FWIW = For What It's Worth.

Again shame on you for using a propaganda page as a reference.

Oh yeah i almost forgot:

hearsay

1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

[Skybird]

[quote="August"] Depends on your viewpoint I guess. The Sunnis might not have it as good as they did under Saddam, but what about the Kurds? Are they still being gassed and shot in wholesale lots? Are Shiites still being given starved, tortured and executed in wholesale lots? [\quote]

Violance and terror is spreading both towards North and South. the silence in Basra and British sector seem to be over. Since months Kurdish cities has been attacked, not as often as in the centre of the country, but to say Kurdish territory is pacified is false. Britsh troops oin the south are on higher state of alerts than before. Some months ago there was a discussion if we already have a civil war in Iraq, or if it is close to that. No matter what - a war zone it is - years after Bushs premature victory parade on that carrier. Today violance and death toll in Iraq is higher than it ever were under Saddam, war with Iran excluded. In fact I fail to see the diffrences between between back then and now. Look at the detoriating supply situation with water. Food. Electricity. Living conditionas for many, many people definetly are not better than before - but the opposite.

[quote="August"]The main pre-war assumption was that Saddam was a threat to us. Given his history and his oil money i'd say that assumption was and is an accurate one.[\quote]

Wrong. The assumptions that had been voiced where worded much more precisely, and I'm sure you know that. "Clear and immediate danger". Wrong. " "Possession of B-C-wepaons" Wrong. "Close to A-wepaons". Wrong. "niger deal". Wrong. Mobile wepaoin laboratories. Wrong. "Mases of WMD stored." Wrong. "Missiles reaching london in 30 minutes". Wrong. "Direct links to Al Quaeda". Wrong.

Originally Posted by August

The jury is still out on that, but I must say it's disturbing to see how many of our so called allies are hoping it won't.

The usual attempt to discredit anyone who is against you because he is not with you by insisting on his bad intentions and bad wishings for the worse. It needs a blind man to see a psoitve developement in Iraq for the next years to come. I do not wish for failure, I see failure. I do hope that this way of unilaterlly acting is preveted from becoming a precedence case, therefor I wish the best for the Ireaquis now - but hope that america will gain zero benefit from what it has done, strategically, economically, else-wise. If it would have rewards that come up for the costs in money and lifes it will be tempted to do it again. And this I do not want and do not support. Only a painful conclusion on Iraq will prevent America to prematurely attack another country it does not like the next time. Unfortunately the major part of the pain is not suffered by america, but the Iraqi people.

Ties between Iran and Iraq are rapidly strenghtening. Iraq today is the world's center of terrosit's activity and training. There are more men willing to commit terroristic acts than before 2003, for a multitude of different reasons. religious ultra-orthodoxy is very popular in Iraq now. Western ideals are not. A conservative Mullahcracy-like government having to deal with a state of constant civil war-like violance for the next years is - by far - the most probable outcome. Greed, hate and wishes for revenge between the three major ethnic groups is heating up constantly. The level of violance is not declining, it is not constant - it is growing since two years. Right now there is country-wide torturing taking place - in the name of the government. A network of torture centres had been described since the beginning of these year. Barbarism is the only way to counter barbarism, it is said. Saddam may have gone. In the hidden the old basic rules have come back. I wonder why Saddam has been kicked out?

Is this what private John Smith and Sergeant Jim Sixpack had been told they should risk their lifes for?

Playing the time card "let'S see how it turns out" often is just an attempt to avoid beeing blamed for something, hoping that the short memory of people will forget it before one could be held responsible for what one has done. But reasonable assumptions and projections based on observations in the present are something that everyone of us is buidling his everyday-life upon, always.

Plenty of voices have told your country in advance that it will come to the results we now see. The warnings of attacking Iraq had been numerous, and liud, and clear. The bad news today is no news at all -it is a consequence that had been forseen by many. So don't complain, and do not shoot the messenger. Start shooting those that brought you into this.